Daily BrewB.C. woman fails in lawsuit holding casino responsible for her losing $330K
A problem gambler who lost $330,000 at a British Columbia casino has failed again in her attempt to sue the province’s gambling agency over its inability to keep her out of trouble.
Joy Ross sued the B.C. Lottery Corp. after she broke a casino exclusion program she had voluntarily joined, but managed to make her way back into the gambling parlour. According to CBC News, Ross first sued B.C. Lottery Corp. in 2010 after losing the fortune while on the agency's "do not admit" list. The case was dismissed and Ross tried again in 2012.
When Ross filed her lawsuit in 2012, the woman's lawyer said the government and casinos "owed addicted gamblers a duty of care" once they were on the exclusion list.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the self-exclusion program was not a legal contract that holds the lottery groups responsible for the actions of participants.
Gaming agencies around the world have begun offering voluntary exclusion programs to help problem gamblers fight the urge to roll the dice. In most cases, casinos use facial recognition software, photos and other security measures to watch for participants, removing or banning them from the premises whenever possible.
The key is 'whenever possible.' Because problem gamblers, like other addicts, can be crafty and persistent in their pursuits.
[ Related: Ontario Provincial Police now overseeing Rob Ford investigation ]
Alberta has its own self-exclusion program, which promises staff members will “work to help self-exclusion program participants uphold their contractual agreements,” most notably to stay away from casinos.
In response to a previous lawsuit against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, that agency wrote, “Voluntary self-exclusion does not, and never has represented a legal, binding obligation between OLG and patrons. The (self-exclusion) program does not transfer personal responsibility away from the individual who joins.”
A BC Centre for Social Responsibility study suggested that the self-exclusion programs are generally successful. The report found that about half of those who signed up for the B.C. program never tried to return to a casino and more than two-thirds credit the program in their decision to stop gambling.
The study further suggested improved measures of protection would help the system, although it was simply a matter of making it as effectively as possible.
[ Related: Calgary bus driver fired after picking up kids in her own car when school bus wouldn’t start ]
By design, casinos bear no responsibility beyond voluntary enforcement, while the program issues every imaginable punishment against participants who breach the agreement. That, after all, is the point.
Last year, two men enrolled in the same exclusion program sued B.C. Lottery Corp. when they were denied their VLT jackpots.
The pair had frequently breached the order, one of them losing more than $200,000 in the process. In the instances when they finally won, their attempts to claim the jackpots triggered the casino’s security system and they were removed from the premises.
Not to be glib, because gambling addiction is a problem not unlike alcoholism or drug addiction. But the purpose of the voluntary program is to assist the subject's efforts to stop gambling, not take responsibility for them.
Those on the list are removed from mailing lists, they are put in contact with addiction counsellors and, yes, it includes measures to keep them away from casinos when possible. But the process works on good faith, and a person's efforts to sidestep the program essentially negates the benefit of the program.
The entire self-exclusion program is wrought with problems, almost by design. But that’s the cost of building a mouse trap that requires the mice to agree not to try to evade capture.
